As such, we turn to Appellants’ evidence of criticality, and we agree with the Examiner’s stated position in the record that Appellants’ showing of unexpected results is not convincing because the comparison made must be with the closet prior art such as Brant.2 Ans. 12—13. “[W]hen unexpected results are used as evidence of nonobviousness, the results must be shown to be unexpected compared with the closest prior art.”Kao Corp. v. Unilever U.S., Inc., 441 F.3d 963, 970 (Fed. Cir. 2006) quotingIn Re Baxter Travenol Labs., 952 F.2d 388, 392 (Fed. Cir. 1991). As a general guideline, the closest prior art is the reference that has the most claim limitations in common with the invention, bearing in mind the relative importance of particular limitations.In re Merchant, 575 F.2d 865, 868 (CCPA 1978).Baxter Travenol Labs., In re, 952 F.2d 388, 21 USPQ2d 1281 (Fed. Cir. 1991) 2131.01, 2145Merchant, In re, 575 F.2d 865, 197 USPQ 785 (CCPA 1978) 716.02(e)